DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Amendment
2. The amendment filed May 22, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1, 6-7, 11, 15, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1-6 and 12-19 have been withdrawn. Claims 7-11 and 20 are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 20, 2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Withdrawal of Claim Objections
4. The objection of claim 20 is withdrawn in view of Applicants amendments and arguments.
Withdrawal of Claim Rejections
5. The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of Applicants amendments and arguments.
6. The rejection of claims 7 -11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pannell is withdrawn in view of Applicants amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 7-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
The claimed invention is directed to a microbial microcapsule encapsulating a (A) hydrophobic component having a surface tension above 33.6 mN/m at 25°C in a microorganism (B), for 3 hours or more, wherein the microorganism has been subjected to an enzymatic treatment followed by an acid treatment which elutes intracellular components prior to incorporation into the microbial microcapsule and an encapsulation percentage defined by the following equation (1) is above 60 mass %, Encapsulation percentage (mass%) = [mass of (A) hydrophobic component/(mass of
(A) hydrophobic component + dry mass of (B) microorganism)] x 100 (1) without
significantly more. The claims recite a product. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a process, machine manufacture or composition of matter). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because do not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Question #1: Is the claim to a process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter? The claims are drawn to: a microbial microcapsule encapsulating a (A) hydrophobic component having a surface tension above 33.6 mN/m at 25°C in a microorganism (B). Thus, the answer to question #1 from the PEG analysis is “Yes”, the rejected claims are directed to a product, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claims thus recite a judicial exception. Therefore, these components cannot be considered to add significantly more to the judicial exception. The only portions of the claims that add to the judicial exception are routine and conventional in the art and thus do not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Question #2A-Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In the instant case, the rejected claims recite a mental step
of determining the encapsulation percentage.
It is also noted that claim 7 indicate a Naturally occurring encapsulating microorganisms include bacteria with protective outer capsules like Streptococcus pneumoniae and Salmonella, and those containing internal protein shells called encapsulins,; Naturally occurring encapsulated yeast primarily refers to pathogenic yeasts like Cryptococcus neoformans and C. gattii, which create a protective polysaccharide capsule in nature (especially in soil/trees/bird droppings) to survive host defenses; and Naturally occurring encapsulating algae aren't one specific type, but rather algae that produce natural coatings like mucilage or are harvested for their polysaccharides (like alginate from brown algae), creating a natural "capsule" for compounds or themselves, with Chlorella & Spirulina (cyanobacteria) being famous for their cell walls used in supplements, while brown seaweeds yield alginates for industrial encapsulation, which is also a judicial exception.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim limitations set forth a judicial exception, because this type of correlation is a consequence of natural processes, similar to the naturally occurring correlation found to be a law of nature by the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012). Additionally, the claims use the equation of Encapsulation percentage (mass%) = [mass of (A) hydrophobic component/(mass of (A) hydrophobic component + dry mass of (B) microorganism)] x 100 (1) or textual descriptions of math are often considered abstract ideas.
As such, each of the rejected claims recite a mental process that is reasonably considered in this case to be a mental process. Thus, the answer to Question #2A-Prong I is “Yes” because each of the claims recites a judicial exception (i.e. a mental step and a natural product).
Question #2A-Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? None of the rejected claims appear to recite an additional element or elements that integrate the judicial exception (i.e. the mental step recited in the claims) into a practical application. For example, the components are naturally occurring. And the description of the encapsulation percentage appears to be nothing more than data gathering activity that is used to provide a basis for the equation. There are no additional components recited in any of the rejected claims that integrate the mental process into a practical application of the judicial exception. Additionally, the claimed equation could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (e.g., the mental comparison in University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). Calculating a particular encapsulation percentage is a purely arithmetic exercise and nothing more than a mathematical algorithm that could be implemented using a pen and paper. See Synopsys (Mentor) II (Fed. Cir. 10/17/16) (aff’g Summ. J. of invalidity). The claims are directed to an abstract mental process and contain no inventive concept. The claims are therefore invalid.
Thus, the claim is directed to at least one exception (Step 2A: YES), which may be termed a law of nature, an abstract idea, or both. Note that although the claim recites two nature-based product limitations (e.g., the microorganism and the hydrophobic liquid), the claim as a whole is focused on the products. Thus, there is no need to perform the markedly different characteristics analysis on the recited nature-based product limitations. Therefore, the answer to Question 2A-Prong II is “No”.
Question #2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Each of the rejected claims recites data-classifying qualities that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art as well as the judicial exception. Besides the law of nature, the claim does not recite additional components. No other additional elements are recited in the rejected claims. Determining the encapsulating percentage and/or the log P value is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field. Further, the components are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant activity, e.g., a mere data classifying qualities necessary to define the components. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional machine or a transformation of a particular article, in this claim that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data classifying activity engaged in by scientists prior to applicant’s invention, and at the time the application was filed, e.g., the routine and conventional techniques of defining the qualities of components. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as describing elements or reciting mathematical equations does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Thus, the answer to Question #2B is “No” because none of the rejected claims recite any additional element or elements that make the claim as a whole read on something that is significantly more than the judicial element recited in the claim.
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not invoke any of the considerations that courts have identified as providing significantly more than an exception. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is not eligible. Given the analysis provided above, it is apparent that each of the rejected claims encompasses embodiments that are not directed to statutory subject matter. Therefore, claims 7-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants amended the claims to evidence that the encapsulated enzyme and acid treated microorganism has markedly different characteristics from any found in nature. However, Applicants argue that the recitation of the encapsulation percentage is not a mental process but is a physical property. In response, the Office asserts the claims recite an abstract idea because it describes a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations and is not tied to a specific structure or machine. Because mathematical calculations are not patent eligible, are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. In this case, the claims add no inventive concept to the mathematics to which they are directed — merely a further-specified mathematical calculations. Here, the wholly abstract idea — the selection and mathematical analysis of information, followed by reporting or display of the results is recited by the instant claims. Here, the encapsulation calculations, are still directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, contrary to Applicants assertion, the rejection is maintained.
Maintained Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 7-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shizukuishi et al., (JPH 08243378 published 1996-09-24; priority to 1995-11-16).
The claims are drawn to a microbial microcapsule encapsulating a (A) hydrophobic component having a surface tension above 33.6 mN/m at 25°C in a microorganism (B) wherein the microorganism has been subjected to an enzymatic treatment followed by an acid treatment which elutes intracellular components prior to incorporation into the microbial microcapsule, and an encapsulation percentage defined by the following equation (1) is above 60 mass%, Encapsulation percentage (mass%) = [mass of (A) hydrophobic component/(mass of (A) hydrophobic component + dry mass of (B) microorganism)] 100 (1).
Shizukuishi et al., describe a microcapsule is produced by treating the yeast with the enzyme to release the components in the cell outside the cell and after that, treating with the acidic aq. solution and encapsulating the material to be encapsulated into the yeast cell [abstract]. The yeast microorganism has a cell wall; thus teaching claims 9-10. To encapsulate a large quantity of a hydrophobic liquid into a yeast cell in a high ratio by treating the yeast with an enzyme to release components in the cell outside the cell and after that, treating the yeast cell with an acidic aq. solution and encapsulating material to be encapsulated into the yeast cell [Purpose/Abstract]. Shizukuishi et al., describe the process for eluting intracellular components by enzyme treatment [Example 1]. Shizukuishi et al., describe the enzymatic treatment residue with acidic aqueous solution where the enzyme treatment residue was suspended in a hydrochloric acid solution [para 26]. Thus, the microorganism has been subjected to an enzymatic treatment followed by an acid treatment which elutes intracellular components prior to incorporation into the microbial microcapsule.
Shizukuishi et al., describe many hydrophobic liquids containing fats and oils have a nutritional function, and they are generally obtained from animals and plants, but recently, they have also been produced from microorganisms. Some of these hydrophobic liquids are effectively used as food materials and feed materials, but many of them are easily altered by heat, light, oxidants, etc., and if they are liquid, they are very difficult to handle. It is expected that if the useful hydrophobic liquid can be encapsulated at a higher density than in the conventional method, these drawbacks can be ameliorated and the application to more advanced applications becomes possible [para 9]. Shizukuishi et al., describe the hydrophobic liquid is a substantially water-insoluble liquid, a liquid which becomes a water-insoluble liquid by heating, and a fat-soluble substance such as fatty acid ester or steroid, which is a suitable liquid. Specifically, as simple lipids, monoester type chain simple waxes, complex waxes, triglycerides, and monoglycerides and diglycerides such as corn oil, rice bran oil, cottonseed oil, castor oil, Cod oil, squid oil, sardine oil, lard, beef tallow, sheep fat, horse oil [para 11]. It is noted that Cottonseed oil: Generally has a surface tension in the range of 35.00 - 35.40 mN/m. At exactly 25°C, one study measured fresh corn oil at 34.31 mN/m and has a log P value above 1.0. Thus teaching claims 7, 8 and 20. In addition, triglycerides represented by microbial oils and fats. Comparative Test 2 shows that the method in which yeast cells are treated with acidic aqueous solution after enzymatic treatment can be applied not only to triolein but also to triglycerides in general [Comparative Test 2]. In the treatment with the acidic aqueous solution various solvents and preservatives can be added as necessary. Preservatives include benzoic acid, sorbic acid, salicylic acid which are all hydrophobic components having a surface tension above 33.6 mN/m at 25°C. Further, if necessary various deterioration preventing agents such as a preservative and the like can be added for encapsulation [para 22].
The encapsulation rate ([weight of lipid in encapsulated yeast cells / dry weight of encapsulated yeast cells] x 100 (%)) was calculated [Encapsulation Step]. For example, when oleic acid is encapsulated by 1N hydrochloric acid treatment, the recovery rate of the encapsulated yeast is 62.6% of the total solid content of the hydrochloric acid treatment residue used and oleic acid. The final recovery of encapsulated oleic acid was 75.5% [Encapsulation Step]. Thus teaching claim 7. Therefore Shizukuishi et al., anticipates the rejected claims.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the oleic acid and triolein which were used in Examples do not meet the claim limitations. In this case, Shizukuishi et al., clearly teach numerous hydrophobic encapsulating substances such as monoglycerides and triglycerides including cottonseed oil, corn oil, rice bran oil, castor oil, cod oil, sardine oil, horse oil and sheep fat all having a surface tension above 33.6 mN/m at 25°C.
Applicant’s attention is directed MPEP 2112. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date and allowing expert testimony with respect to post-critical date clinical trials to show inherency); see also Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.”); Abbott Labs v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 1319, 51 USPQ2d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics.”); Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1348-49, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Because ‘sufficient aeration’ was inherent in the prior art, it is irrelevant that the prior art did not recognize the key aspect of [the] invention.... An inherent structure, composition, or function is not necessarily known.”); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1343-44, 74 USPQ2d 1398, 1406-07 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that a prior art patent to an anhydrous form of a compound “inherently” anticipated the claimed hemihydrate form of the compound because practicing the process in the prior art to manufacture the anhydrous compound “inherently results in at least trace amounts of” the claimed hemihydrate even if the prior art did not discuss or recognize the hemihydrate); In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364, 1373, 82 USPQ2d 1643, 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (The court noted that although the inventors may not have recognized that a characteristic of the ingredients in the prior art method resulted in an in situ formation of a separating layer, the in situ formation was nevertheless inherent. “The record shows formation of the in situ separating layer in the prior art even though that process was not recognized at the time. The new realization alone does not render that necessary [sic] prior art patentable.”). Applicants are reminded that the surface tension of the hydrophobic liquid would not have been recognized by the Shizukuishi et al., disclosure, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the hydrophobic liquid. Shizukuishi et al., teach the hydrophobic liquids containing fats and oils have a nutritional function, and they are generally obtained from animals and plants, they have also been produced from microorganisms.
Shizukuishi et al., teach by treating the yeast cell with an acidic aqueous solution and then encapsulating the substance to be encapsulated in the yeast cell, not only a microcapsule containing a larger amount of a hydrophobic substance. That is, the present invention is to release the intracellular components of yeast by treating the yeast with an enzyme, treat the yeast with an acidic aqueous solution, and then encapsulate the substance to be encapsulated in the yeast. Furthermore, Shizukuishi et al., clearly teach numerous hydrophobic encapsulating substances such as monoglycerides and triglycerides including cottonseed oil, corn oil, rice bran oil, castor oil, cod oil, sardine oil, horse oil and sheep fat all having a surface tension above 33.6 mN/m at 25°C. Applicants are reminded that The MPEP section 2123 teaches that patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain, “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir.1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. “The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.”). First, Applicant is remined that Shizukuishi et al., is not limited to only teaching oleic acid and triolein because those are used in the Examples. In this case, Shizukuishi et al., teach additional embodiments such as cottonseed oil, corn oil, rice bran oil, castor oil, cod oil, sardine oil, horse oil and/or sheep fat all having a surface tension above 33.6 mN/m at 25°C.
Therefore applicant’s argument is not persuasive especially when considering Shizukuishi et al., explicitly enumerates numerous examples of hydrophobic encapsulating substances such as cottonseed oil, corn oil, rice bran oil, castor oil, cod oil, sardine oil, horse oil and/or sheep fat all having a surface tension above 33.6 mN/m at 25°C. Moreover, Shizukuishi et al., teach the inclusion of hydrophobic preservatives such as benzoic acid, sorbic acid, salicylic acid which all have a surface tension above 33.6 mN/m at 25°C.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, no knowledge was gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure; therefore this argument is not persuasive because impermissible hindsight reasoning was not used in this case. Thus the rejection is maintained.
Pertinent Art
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The surface tension of typical vegetable oils like rice bran oil is approximately 30 to 35 mN/m (or dynes/cm) at room temperature (25 °C), consistent with general nonpolar organic liquid behaviors.
The surface tension of pure castor oil is approximately 37 to 39 dynes/cm (equivalent to 37–39 mN/m) at 25 °C.
The surface tension of fish and marine animal oils, such as cod oil, is approximately 31 to 38 mN/m (dynes/cm) at room temperature.
Squid oil, like other natural organic and marine animal oils, its surface tension is expected to fall within the general range of typical non-polar and natural lipid oils, which is approximately 30 to 35 mN/m (dynes/cm) at room temperature.
The specific surface tension value for pure bulk sardine oil at 25 °C is generally around 30 to 35 mN/m (dynes/cm), typical of non-polar long-chain marine triglyceride and fatty acid matrices.
The surface tension of pure horse oil at 25°C is not a single fixed constant but typically ranges between 31 and 35 mN/m (or dynes/cm). This value is characteristic of natural triglyceride-based animal fats and vegetable oils.
The surface tension of sheep fat is approximately 71.24 mN/m (measured at 20 °C on an aqueous saturated solution).
The surface-active properties of diglycerides (diacylglycerols) lower the aqueous surface tension to roughly 30 to 35 mN/m at concentrations near their critical micelle concentration, though exact values depend heavily on their specific fatty acid chain lengths and composition.
The surface tension of typical microbial and vegetable triglyceride oils at 25°C ranges from approximately 30 to 35 mN/m (dynes/cm). Purified microbial/vegetable triglycerides: ~31–34 mN/m
Preservatives
The surface tension of an aqueous solution of benzoic acid (1 g/L) is approximately 67.5 mN/m at 20°C, and standard regulatory compilation data for aqueous media lists the surface tension as 60.0 mN/m.
The exact surface tension of sorbic acid specifically at 25 °C is not standardly documented in primary chemical reference databases; however, an aqueous solution of sorbic acid (1 g/L) has a recorded mean surface tension of 53.5 mN/m at 20 °C, and estimated pure-form property databases list its surface tension as 35.4 dyne/cm.
Topical microemulsions: Formulations containing low concentrations of salicylic acid (e.g., 0.5%) typically exhibit surface tension values ranging from roughly 30.82 to 34.71 mN/m depending on the specific oil-and-surfactant matrix used
The surface tension of methyl salicylate at 25 degrees Celsius is approximately 41.5 dynes/cm.
Conclusion
12. No claims allowed.
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JA-NA A HINES whose telephone number is (571)272-0859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Peter Paras, can be reached on 571-272-4517. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JANA A HINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1645
Prosecution Insights